It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Parental Advisory: Same Sex Marriage

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Davood
Hence why I say we should warn people if tv shows have religious content, since their way of thinking makes everything ELSE seem bad.


If you were talking about any political subset of a minority group, you would be flamed like mad for that statement. As it stands, though, I will probably be the only one to point out the biggotry of this statement as I did JTL's, and I'm sure you will have many defenders explaining that "all them there folk be like that, so it's not a steriotype." Ahh well, I guess the lesson here is prejudice is wrong for some, but acceptable for others.




posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 06:59 PM
link   
Ok, so there are language, sex, and violence warnings to advise viewer discretion. But, c'mon...homosexuality?? I think one of the posters were right, this must be a joke, and a damn good one if it is!

The news is covered with controversy surrounding gay marriage, but no viewer discretion. So, why the Simpsons?

It is because it shows tolerance towards homosexuality? This seems to be the only explanation. FAUX knows it viewers, they know their FAUX news and how many of the viewers abhor homosexuality, so it seems only fit that they would advise parents to censure their children from it.

I can't believe such great shows as the Simpsons, Family Guy, etc. are owned by the same company as FAUX news. Because now, if we watch something they don't agree with, such as homosexuality, faux will tell us that we should censure our children from it. But be sure to turn to Faux News where we talk about how bad it is!



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 07:51 PM
link   
I think it's a joke, myself. Didn't you say that it was "accidental," in a way (plot-wise)?



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 01:33 AM
link   
That episode didn't have any warnings in Australia, so I think it's safe to say it wasn't the writers having fun.



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 02:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShreddedIce
I think it's a joke, myself. Didn't you say that it was "accidental," in a way (plot-wise)?


Just quoting you because i dont feel like going back to the first page to find the first person who suggested this


Anyway, it was not a joke. I caught this episode the first time it aired and saw the disclaimer. It was a standard fox disclaimer similiar to the one they put before violent movies or "controversial" shows, warning about language, violence, adult situations, whatever, except this one said gay marriage. I forget the exact wording of the disclaimer, but i do remember it being there. The easy way to tell it wasnt part of the show was that when the simpsons do a joke like that, they make it obvious that it is a joke. This was just the standard fox warning template.

Whats weird is they singled that episode out when earlier in the season there was an episode where homer goes to live in the "gay" part of the city with 2 gay room mates, and even ends up kissing one of them.



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 08:36 PM
link   
It's obvious there is a political agenda. FAUX would be hypocritical if they censured gay marriage on their news channel and then showed it without criticism on their other entertainment channel. I'm sure they'll find other ways to become hypocritical though.



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake

Originally posted by Davood
Hence why I say we should warn people if tv shows have religious content, since their way of thinking makes everything ELSE seem bad.


If you were talking about any political subset of a minority group, you would be flamed like mad for that statement. As it stands, though, I will probably be the only one to point out the biggotry of this statement as I did JTL's, and I'm sure you will have many defenders explaining that "all them there folk be like that, so it's not a steriotype." Ahh well, I guess the lesson here is prejudice is wrong for some, but acceptable for others.



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 10:09 PM
link   
JJ is right, the non-christians focus on the right-wing extremists, while the right-wing extremists use Christianity as a front for their own agendas.
Not that there aren't Christians like this. I had to stifle a laugh one day at work when someone that I've known for quite a while started going off on homosexuals, and how they were going to "destroy America". I'm a Christian, probably a fairly conservative one, in some respects, but please, if the homosexuals were able to destroy america we'd have been screwed, no pun intended, long, long ago. There is so much in the Bible that we just don't have any way of knowing what the original intent was, or even if it should be taken literally. I know there are some who would call me a heretic for doubting the absolute validity of everything, but faith has to be tempered with common sense. The things we don't understand, we have to leave up to God, and above all, remind ourselves that, regardless of what the Law may have stated, the Law gave way to mercy. If one truly believes that Christ died for the sins of man, then perhaps they should think about the fact that there is much, much more in the Bible about
hatred, intolerance, and greed than there is sexual sin. God understood that the Law was death, that no one could live up to it, and the Son was sent so that the Law could be appeased. Sort of like, "Okay, I set up these Laws, and they're too extreme, human beings just aren't made to be perfect, and oops, I made them that way. Okay then, I will pay the price, so they won't have to." I realize this is a lot of dogma for the general reader, but this is the Christianity I was taught. The whole "he has no sin cast the first stone" thing means that the person who hates, the person who oppresses, the person who manipulates, is every bit as much a sinner as the person who sleeps with someone of the same sex, or has sex outside of marriage, or mixes meat and dairy(!?). Anyway, I guess I said all that to say this, live and let live, realize that if we believe in God then we have to believe that we all fall horribly short in His eyes, and that to focus on someone elses faults, or what we percieve as faults, is as much reprehensible to Him as the sins we claim to abhor.

Unless of course you're talking about Britney Spears...SHE should be stoned.

Just kidding.

Peace.



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 10:11 PM
link   
P.S. I LOVE Harry Potter, so there.



posted on Jul, 27 2005 @ 09:47 AM
link   
You know, some of the prejudices against gays are just sad. I talked to a guy who actually believes that homosexuality was the reason Rome fell, and America is going to go the same route. Economic, military and political corruption had nothing to do with Rome's fall, the root of it all was homosexuality. It's kind of interesting that people can find that the reason for a nations fall or whatever's root cause is the thing that they seem to hate in their own nation, while dismissing all the other factors as side effects of that "root cause" they discovered.

I was listening to Ask The Pastor with Greggory Dickow the other day and he took a great question and had a great answer. A guy called saying his Christian friends were telling him he couldn't be a true Christian because he was gay. Dickow responded that yes, homosexuality is a sin specifically mentioned in the Bible, but so is lying, pride, over eating, etc. If we were supposed to be perfect before we can become Christians, then what was the point of Christ?



posted on Jul, 27 2005 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by James the Lesser
JJ, you realize the nutjob christians wanted "The Davinci Code" banned for spreading lies. IT IS IN THE FICTION SECTION!!!!!!!! WTF? Christians have nothing better to do then complain about a fiction book being made up??? Wha??????



But the job is done, fiction or not fiction. Actually the great Dan himself was saying in the Discovery channel documentary about the Davinci Code that he believes Jesus was married to Mary and they had children.



posted on Jul, 27 2005 @ 07:08 PM
link   
Yeah, Dan did the media thing to make it seem like what started out as a fictional novel, the more he researched and discovered, it was becoming clear to him that he had actually stumbled upon the truth. However, we live in a free society. Just like the Chech Republic didn't ban Team America because North Korea demanded it, America isn't going to ban a film because some groups are offended by it. Movie theaters can, they're private businesses allowed to make their own business decisions without Hollywood or Washington telling them which movies they must and must not show, but it is not the government's job.

It may seem like it sucks at times, but it cuts both ways. The same effort was made when The Passion came out, but because of the same laws that protected the DaVinci Code, it could not be banned.



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 10:50 AM
link   
I'm not making it up Intrepid!! It was on the local news, then on MSNBC, then on Daily SHow! Christian leaders going on about how The Davinci COde was wrong and spreading lies and needs to be banned! IT'S FICTION!!!

Oh yeah, the south just loves to have book fires. They were interviewing a book store owner.
"I couldn't believe it, I thought maybe have kids or teens buying them but they were all adults. I was worried when they started the fire, but since they bought every Potter book I had I don't care, the parking lot can't be burnt that bad."

Then on Local Green Bay(I was in the UP of Michigan and the only channels we get are CBC, CTV, and Green Bay) going on about how several stores in Georgia, South Carolina, Arkansas, Alabama, and Mississippi were having record sales as local church groups bought every book only to burn them.

Like I said, they need to get a new hobby besides burning everything they don't like.



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Like I said, they need to get a new hobby besides burning everything they don't like.


hehe And what would you suggest? Maybe flaming everything they don't like?



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tinkleflower

If it offends you - don't watch the show. It's that simple. But moreover, don't stigmatise an act that's completely legal between two consenting adults.


Good point, except how would we know unless they put the warning on like they did? I thought that was the point of all the ratings and warnings. Or in your mind are we supposed to wait until they actually offend us by showing something you don't want to watch before you change the channel.



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 01:39 PM
link   
The nature of the show in question is such that it's reasonable to assume that the viewer is aware that some material might be considered offensive to someone; this isn't an episode of The Flintstones or Mr Rogers' Neighbourhood.

It's The Simpsons - a show known, at the very least, for satire, sarcasm, and generally making fun of occasionally sensitive topics. Should we expect warnings for every possible topic that might be deemed "offensive" by someone? No, of course not.

Do we expect warnings for jokes or satire centered on abortion? euthanasia? Certain religious practices? Death? Roadkill? War? Humour directed at a particular politician or other public figure? Some or all of these topics may be considered offensive by some.

It's unreasonable to expect a warning - particularly for a show known for a more "edgy" type of humour - for every item which might be considered offensive, surely?



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 03:26 PM
link   
Since I didn't catch this thread from the beginning being new here, I thought it would be better to do one post commenting to several people.



Jamuhn - "I can't believe such great shows as the Simpsons"


I can't believe how many people watch the Simpsons and their crude humor.




AlanSmithee - "Anyway, it was not a joke. I caught this episode the first time it aired and saw the disclaimer. It was a standard fox disclaimer similiar to the one they put before violent movies or "controversial" shows, warning about language, violence, adult situations, whatever, except this one said gay marriage."


I glad they did put that warning on. A person doesn't have to be a Christian to be offended by homosexual behaviour. The problem with the gays vs. the anti-gays is where the morality line is drawn, and how they come up with that morality line. If a person is following what is in the Bible, then they should love everyone even whom they consider the enemy. A Christian should love all sinners no matter what the sin is.




Staver - "God understood that the Law was death, that no one could live up to it, and the Son was sent so that the Law could be appeased. Sort of like, Okay, I set up these Laws, and they're too extreme, human beings just aren't made to be perfect, and oops, I made them that way. Okay then, I will pay the price, so they won't have to."


Staver, We were originally made perfect. When Adam and Eve disobeyed God by eating the forbidden fruit, sin came into this world. Our perfection became imperfection. Sin is death. The law came into being because of sin. The law was too much, and the animal sacrifices that were performed for the atonment of sin was not enough. That is why Jesus had to come to die as the final sacrifice.


I do agree with not focusing on someone else's faults. At the same time if they do not know they are sinning, I think it should be pointed out to them with back up refrences. Let God convict them from there. Hounding them will do no good at all, and more likely hate you and think Christianity is bad. Bible thumping will end up giving someone a headache. Owww! I actually been thumped on the head by a Bible, and it hurt alot more than I thought it would when I saw the Bible heading for my head. Two asprin please. I believe a spiritual Bible thumping would hurt just as much.




James the Lesser - "how several stores in Georgia, South Carolina, Arkansas, Alabama, and Mississippi were having record sales as local church groups bought every book only to burn them."


It sounds like they were having a 70s' book burning protest than a boycott. I don't like Potter myself, but this does not make sense unless they were going for media attention. You're right. They were just putting more money in the coffers of the publisher and author. Money talks much more than a protest.



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 06:27 PM
link   
This is very interesting. There are many subjects covered on The Simpsons that I would think 'bother people' so I wonder why parents who are concerned about such things are letting their kids watch it at all...

I mean, to cover all the inuendos, there would have to be a warning in front of every show. But this (if it wasn't a joke) is happening more and more recently. Homer had a flaming secretary, Smithers has had a crush on Burns forever and he's obviously gay. So it's not just homosexuality, it's "gay marriage' that seems to be the culprit. That's the political trigger.

Somehow I don't think this was a joke...


JungleJake - I honestly wonder. If the warning was "Warning: this show contains religious matter. Parents are cautioned."

Would that bother you?



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
This is very interesting. There are many subjects covered on The Simpsons that I would think 'bother people' so I wonder why parents who are concerned about such things are letting their kids watch it at all...

JungleJake - I honestly wonder. If the warning was "Warning: this show contains religious matter. Parents are cautioned."

Would that bother you?


That is why I don't get cable, and subscribe to a satelite network geared towards Christians. I don't have to worry about shows like that and cartoons worse than the simpsons.

I know you addressed the warning to JungleJake, I would say yes I would be concerned, but not suprised. It would verify my beliefs about the book of Revelations, and would single that the end times is much closer than I thought.



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
JungleJake - I honestly wonder. If the warning was "Warning: this show contains religious matter. Parents are cautioned."

Would that bother you?


I really don't think it would. I can't say for sure because I've not been confronted with it, but so far as I know myself, it wouldn't bother me. If someone found religious matters offensive, I would probably think there's a problem there like I'm sure you think with me, but I wouldn't support tricking them or focring them to watch a program discussing religious matters. Only God can open someone's heart to know Him, and we are just messangers to deliver the Good News. You can't trick God into opening someone's hearts, and you can't fight sin with sin.

On top of that, I would actually really like seeing a label like that, because it would mean there'd be some programs, sitcoms, cartoons, etc. which are discussing religious matters on the air. As of now, it's few and far between, and when it does show up, it's more humanist or unitarian than any monothiestic religion. So, no, I wouldn't be offended, I'd be thrilled. It might even get me to start watching television again.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join